| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): We have had the privilege and pleasure of getting two bites of the cherry today, in that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick) has talked about Sheffield in two separate debates. I had the good fortune to hear his earlier
speech, although admittedly through the television network, and I found that as fascinating as I found the speech that he has just made. As the House knows, my hon. Friend has considerable experience of representing Sheffield in the House and in local government. Therefore, it is important that we should listen to the points he makes.
My hon. Friend has focused on Sheffield, and it is probably sensible if I do the same. However, I do so with some caution. Although my knowledge of Sheffield is increasing--it is based on statistics and comments from business men and industry and a number of visits--it is nowhere near that of my hon. Friend.
At long last, Sheffield city council has started to recognise that changes are needed and has taken steps to improve its performance. Debates such as tonight's will help that.
As an ethnic minority immigrant, I can say that Sheffield is renowned throughout the world. It is a great city, with a great history. The people of Sheffield are fabulous people who are proud of their city. Many people are surprised to learn that, despite the restructuring and rationalisation of the 1980s, the steel industry for which Sheffield is internationally famous now produces more steel than ever before, and is more profitable. The greatest difference--which I have discussed with my hon. Friend while standing in Sheffield--is that now one can see it. The old smokestacks are gone, and the environment has greatly improved.
Sheffield can no longer rely on a single industry for employment. The city needs to grow and diversify, but the council appears not to make that a priority. I still hear complaints that the council is anti-business. As a result, in desperation at the council's attitude and in recognition of the problems--and with considerable prompting from my hon. Friend--the development corporation was set up.
I shall not spend much time on that. The Development Corporation is extremely successful, and has revitalised the lower Don valley, which is now an attractive location for industry, distribution and office development. My hon. Friend mentioned the airport, which is an example of partnership between Sheffield development corporation, English Partnerships and the private sector. I am not sure whether the local authority was involved, or even adopted a positive attitude.
However, as my hon. Friend has said, all urban development corporations were intended to be limited-life bodies. They need to reach a conclusion, and the Sheffield development corporation will be the next one to wind up in March 1997. The remaining development corporations will wind up in March 1998.
We all recognise that suitable arrangements must be in place to ensure that the corporation's achievements are safeguarded and maintained, and that the osmosis of that success into surrounding areas continues. The local authority and other agencies such as English Partnerships have been actively involved in ensuring that the achievements of the development corporation will be maintained.
That commitment and the partnership between public and private sector--English Partnerships is an example of an interim body--will force local authorities to continue
to move the city ahead and adopt a different attitude. It is happening already, although Sheffield has been one of the slowest to change.
Arrangements have also been made in the context of the Government's current policy towards urban regeneration. I refer to the single regeneration budget challenge funding, which compels authorities such as Sheffield to perform sufficiently well to gain funding. The challenge funding approach forces authorities to modernise their thinking and work in partnership with other agencies, particularly the private sector. Sheffield was typically--I say it with a deep sigh--slow to grasp that. Its bids under rounds 1 and 2 of city challenge were full of the old socialist claptrap. They were rejected, and deservedly so.
I am pleased, however, that Sheffield learned from that rejection. It took a while, but it happened. Its later single regeneration budget bids had changed out of all recognition and were successful. Sheffield received £38 million over seven years in round 1, and £36 million over seven years in round 2. The city's two main SRB challenge fund schemes are among the largest approvals in the country.
My hon. Friend will accept that that shows that Shefield city council finally recognises the importance of the matter. These schemes will lever in more than £140 million of other funding, of which nearly £90 million will come from the private sector. The importance of partnership has finally sunk in to Sheffield. If it can sink in to the minds of those councillors, there is hope everywhere. These schemes, and a further £22 million approved under the SRB estates renewal challenge funding, will make a significant contribution to the continued regeneration of this important city.
My hon. Friend portrayed a dismal litany of inadequate maintenance in Sheffield--daleks, potholes, broken street lights, dirty or hazardous pavements and the rest. I have tripped over them in the streets. However, I must add that Sheffield is by no means alone--many Labour and Liberal authorities have similar records. Funnily enough, there are even worse examples--but few. There is, however, some evidence that Sheffield is moving away from this record. I was particularly pleased to hear that the nuclear-free zone signs have been taken down--or perhaps they fell down.
These matters touch on what is, I think, the nub of what my hon. Friend has described--the lack of quality services that citizens in some areas get from their local councils, and what they can do about it. First, councils are ultimately accountable at the ballot box. If people are dissatisfied, they alone can vote out those who run their councils--particularly if all the information is provided. Local accountability rests on this. We have done a great deal in recent years to ensure that better information about performance is available.
What does the information show about Sheffield? I have touched on some of the statistics, and my hon. Friend has done so in an earlier debate. Some 7 per cent. of council tenants are more than 13 weeks in arrears with their rent. That is better than Liverpool, where the figure is 18 per cent., but much worse than the average. These arrears are then loaded on to the more honest citizens, who have to pay.
Sheffield is the second slowest metropolitan council in deciding housing planning applications. What is more, between 1993-94 and 1994-95, the percentage decided
within eight weeks--our standard--fell by more than 10 per cent. In addition, one should be cautious before eating in the restaurants of Sheffield. On average, metropolitan authorities inspect 79 per cent. of those premises that are due for a look. Four councils--Bolton, Knowsley, Dudley and Solihull--achieved 100 per cent., but Sheffield managed less than 20 per cent. I cannot give a list of those that passed.
My hon. Friend knows the story of Supertram better than me, and Sheffield is finally taking action to privatise the enterprise and to stem the haemorrhage of public funds. But the bottom line for local taxpayers this year is that, with only half the hoped-for passenger usage, there will be losses of more than £6 million, with more to come. The belated sale will still leave taxpayers saddled with paying huge residual debts, on top of the major debts incurred by the world student games--which would raise a smile if it were not so disastrous for local people.
I trust that the council tax payers in Sheffield and elsewhere in South Yorkshire will make their councillors answer for that, and ensure that they will in future sit on the sidelines and allow somebody competent to take over.
I trust, but I do not believe, that the new regional assembly for Yorkshire and Humberside will prove a sensible exercise in co-operation. I hope, perhaps in vain, that it is not a politically motivated attempt to promote
further waste by imposing more bureaucracy that is to be paid for by the taxpayer. We will watch it, and make sure that the voters in the area are aware of what is going on.
Like my hon. Friend, I have no intention of knocking Sheffield. The city council has shed much of its past image, and is clearly taking steps in the right direction. At the end of the day, what we will need for Sheffield and other areas is what we will get after the next election--a Conservative Government who will ensure that Labour authorities are forced to behave in a responsible manner.
Many of the changes by Sheffield and other councils have been brought about directly by Conservative policies. In the past 17 years, we have introduced a range of measures to increase local accountability, to improve local council performance and to enhance value for money. At last, they are starting to bite in Sheffield. We have constructed a framework within which local government can adopt three roles--as an enabler, regulator and, above all, community leader. I suspect, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam may agree, that we need a Conservative Government to ensure that the improvement continues. We aim to ensure that the country has an effective and locally accountable system of local government that gives value for money and the quality of public services that the people of Sheffield deserve.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.
| Index | Home Page |